I was recently in a doctor's office waiting for a follow up appointment and picked up
this issue of
Tabletalk, a Reformed magazine, which was available in the waiting room. The theme of the issue was "Authority", and so naturally I was curious as to how this Reformed periodical of sorts would deal with such a loaded topic. In particular, I was interested in the section on "Church Authority" and how the author--whom if memory serves me correctly was
John Muether--would broach the subject.
For starters, the author and I share the same concern. He notices how evangelicals who practice
ecclesial consumerism (church shopping) are sadly just like the moral relativists they publicly decry. In other words, the same principle that leads one to moral relativism leads to theological and/or ecclesial relativism. If theological truth is grounded in the knower--namely in his or her "bosom burning"--then moral truth is grounded there as well. Thus, the evangelical church shopper and the moral relativist are no better off than the other in terms of giving a
principled account for their decision making.
The problem was not in his observation, but came when he tried to present a solution. On the one hand, he would have us to believe that in Protestantism there is a "church" of which one should submit. Of course, one is free to write such a thing, but writing that "one should submit to their church" and saying that such a teaching is in scripture, is quite different than giving me a principled way of finding a church of which I
should submit. I will now show that on the Reformed account, one is no better off than the moral relativist in giving a
principled account for their decision making.
In his example, the evangelical is criticized for church shopping and also for her dissent form her pastor's teaching. Why should she submit to her local church instead of "separating" from what she sees as illegitimate? The author's answer is that one should submit because the church is the "ordinary" place we receive God's grace.
Perfect! All that our evangelical friend needs to do is submit to her local church--whatever their theology is--and she is now following "church" authority. Right?
This is where this whole thing gets really fishy. No Reformed Christian claims that orthodoxy is irrelevant. The whole point of the Reformation was that Rome was heterodox and needed to be ditched, that the true "church" is the church that teaches the "pure" gospel and holds to biblical orthodoxy. Yet the question is begged that if orthodoxy is the mark of the church, according to the Reformed,
how would one know if their church was orthodox? And, if one
knew the theological criteria for a church's orthodoxy, how would it really be submission to show obedience to a church solely on the basis that they agreed with what you already
knew. In other words, the point of submission is that the church, at times, is suppose to get it right and you are suppose to get it wrong.
But isn't that exactly the problem? No one "getting it wrong" thinks they are "geting it wrong", and if they think they are "getting it
right"--
using Scripture, then they would, under this particular schema, have the right to
not submit to their local church.
Moreover, over at the Reformed website Ligonier, an author of a devotional on the topic of church authority
says:
"Jesus assures us of His approving presence when two or more gather in His name to make decisions according to His will".
Thus, according to this devotional article, we are to be confident that through the "church", God will direct us to the truth of the matter.
Q: Who is this church?
A: Where two or more are gathered in his name.
The only problem with the thesis is that every ecclesial community gathers in his name, and yet many of them disagree on fundamental theological issues like baptism, communion, and church government--to name only a few. Each community views many of the other community's theological positions as heterodox, and thus
not a church worthy of submission. If they did, the Presbyterian would tell the Pentecostal--who somehow aimlessly wondered into Frist Presby--to go back to his or her AG church. Not sure that would happen.
Even more, the evangelical could claim that she is exercising the prudential wisdom of where "two or more gather in His name", and thus she feels led to submit to a group that is
on fire for Christ, and will even put the words in their marquee.
Ecclesial consumerism, in this paradigm, has to make sense. If I
know what makes a church orthodox, then
what I know is what I should look for in a church to submit to. Will I make mistakes? You bet. Therefore, when
I realize that the church I submitted to that I thought was orthodox teaches something contrary to what I believe, I should leave that church in favor of a church that agrees with what I
know to be the true teachings of Scripture.
Do people leave churches for bad reasons? Of course they do. However, in this schema there is no way to argue that a person who believes they
know what the Bible teaches on Communion, for example, should have to submit to a church that later he finds out is wrong according to what he
knew.
A possible solution to this problem? John McArthur
suggests its because there isn't enough Bible preaching. People need more of the word of God. If they had it, they would rightly submit to the Lordship of Christ and become "hussites" of sorts. A church that understands theology like John Huss is a true, Bible-believing church, and one should submit to that kind of church.
[Wait a minute...This just in. John Huss agreed with the Catholic Church on ALOT of doctrines. Hmmm....Nope, can't submit to that church!]
I'm all for more Bible preaching, but I want to make the observation that since the Protestant reforbellion in the 16th century, we've gotten a whole lot MORE Bible preaching. It's the most published book. You can find a Bible behind a toilet, in a night stand at a hotel, on a coffee table, book shelf, in about 5-12 different custom translations, even in
ebonics. The evidence that more Bible preaching leads to greater levels of submission to the "church" just doesn't give. In fact, 30,000+ denominations later, we can't help but think that the whole Protestant idea
necessarily leads to church shopping and ecclesial entrepreneurism.
The only solution is that some Church, that we could identify like we could identify
this (Matt 5:14), has been given the Holy Spirit in such a way that she cannot teach error (Matt 16:19). Thus, she will get it right and, at times, I will get it wrong. That's a church worth submitting to, the ground of which is the veracity of the thing outside of myself.
Relativist problem solved. "Church authority" in the protestant paradigm is little more than another way of affirming the primacy of individual conscience. As long as I can resist whatever a church teaches on the grounds that I disagree
with it from Scripture, I will always have the "out" to church shop. It would be my God given right to protect my conscience from error. However, if there truly is a biblical mandate to submit to the "Church" which is the ground and pillar of truth, then the
primacy of the individual conscience is a lie from the pit of hell. It is, as the author of the
Tabletalk article confers upon the evangelical church shopper, the sister of the spirit of this age.
Let us pray that all Christians can find--despite all the noise of "Bible" preaching--the Church who has been protected from error to teach the Truth and truly submit to her as a good son or daughter.
Lest, we only bend our knee in a room full of glass, only to find out it was a room of mirrors--bearing only the various angles of our own conscience, a mirage of humility that quickly becomes the indigestible sand of pride in our mouth.
Lord have mercy.
